The "Move the ICC Out of NYC Act of 2025" aims to prohibit the International Criminal Court from using United Nations facilities in the United States by requiring the U.S. Ambassador to the UN to negotiate a supplemental agreement to the United Nations Headquarters Agreement.
Mike Lee
Senator
UT
The "Move the ICC Out of NYC Act of 2025" directs the U.S. Ambassador to the UN to negotiate an agreement that would prohibit the International Criminal Court (ICC) from using UN facilities located in the United States. This bill asserts that the ICC, which the U.S. has not joined and over which it claims no authority, should not have an office within the United Nations headquarters in New York. The negotiations for this agreement must begin within 30 days of the opening of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly.
U.S. Kicks ICC to the Curb: New Bill Demands UN Boot Court from NYC Headquarters
The "Move the ICC Out of NYC Act of 2025" is pretty much what it sounds like. This bill, introduced in the House, aims to ban the International Criminal Court (ICC) from operating out of the United Nations headquarters in New York City. The core argument? The U.S. never signed the Rome Statute (the ICC's founding treaty), so the court has zero authority over American citizens.
No Jurisdiction, No Office?
The bill leans heavily on the idea of U.S. sovereignty. It points out that while the U.S. joined the UN back in 1945 and agreed to the UN headquarters in New York in 1947, it never agreed to give the ICC any power here. Section 2 of the bill lays this out, and Section 3 makes sure everyone's clear on the terms. The kicker? The ICC does have an office at the UN headquarters. This bill wants that gone.
Making Moves
So, how does this play out? Section 4 gets into the details. Within 30 days of the 80th UN General Assembly session opening, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN is required to start negotiating a "supplemental agreement." Translation: They need to convince the UN to amend the existing Headquarters Agreement to specifically prohibit the ICC from using UN facilities in the United States.
Real-World Consequences
Let's say you're a U.S. service member stationed overseas. The ICC, in theory, could investigate and prosecute individuals for things like war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. But, since the U.S. isn't part of the ICC, American citizens aren't subject to its jurisdiction. This bill doubles down on that, making it harder for the ICC to even have a presence near where major international decisions are made.
Now, imagine you're a lawyer working in international law. This move could be seen as the U.S. further isolating itself from global legal norms. It might also tick off other countries that are members of the ICC and see this as undermining international justice efforts. The bill is a clear message: The U.S. is drawing a hard line when it comes to international oversight, and it is not backing down.
This bill is a clear shot across the bow, signaling a potential clash between U.S. sovereignty and international legal cooperation. It's not just about office space; it's about who gets to decide what's right and wrong on the global stage.